I've only been playing for 16 years, but even I've noticed an absolutely giant step forward in the quality of guitars (& guitar related technology) in recent times. You've Squires now which will hold their own against American Fenders from 15 years ago, great Les Paul's from a whole variety of companies, a whole load more crazy & wonderful stuff to try, and more competition for each type of guitar than ever before.
Before I took a break from electric guitar 4 or so years back, I'd probably owned 20-30 electric guitars. When I came back to electric guitar last year, I wasn't thinking about replacing my nice USA American Standard Tele or going all out for a Les Paul - All I knew I needed was a Pacifica. The one I'd owned before had left such an impression on me that I simply couldn't believe that quality of guitar could be had for that sort of money.
Anyway, fast-forward to yesterday, and yeah... I'm just blown away again - The Bernie Marsden PRS SE.
The thing just sings. The fit & finish is exceptional (and I have inspected it thoroughly), the neck plays very similarly to my USA Troublemaker Tele, and the pickups just sound great out of the box (well, gig-bag).
My recent mid-ranged budget line-up. I'd put any of them against the more expensive guitars I've owned 10 years or so back, and bet on them pretty much each & every time. Part of it I guess is down to experience & knowing what to go for, but there's no doubt been an improvement.
(PS. I'm so glad I decided to take down the Yamaha listing, as I've really been enjoying it recently, and I know I'd just end up getting one again at some point >.< )
So yeah, I'm chuffed. When the time finally comes to go on the hunt for my dream blackguard telecaster, will I really have to look past the mid-ranged pricemark? If I do so, will it be justified through quality alone? Only time will tell.
Cheers.
Comments
If only I could get over the control knob placement on the BM’s!
I do own a Les Paul - a gift from my wife nearly ten years ago. And that guitar has a lovely book-matched flame maple top. But for all that top's beauty I can see no more of it than I can the thinner veneer on my new PRS SE 245. I don't have X-ray vision nor is maple translucent.
That piece of flame maple on my Les Paul could have been better used sliced thin and made into a veneer for several guitars, rather than wasted in one go on my Les Paul. The guitar would have looked and sounded exactly the same.
And I could continue with other aspects of the more expensive guitar. But the point is there's a heck of a lot of extravagance and pointless waste in guitars that doesn't really serve any purpose at all other than enable the maker to demand a higher price.
And the PRS SE lines can top much of the far eastern production lines
As far as the need for a Blonde black guard Tele goes the MIM stuff is great, looks right plays right at very sensible prices - just as it should be
But in the past few years I've amassed a handful of guitars ranging from 200 to 1400 quid and the only one where quality was even an issue was the 950 quid Gibson, the rest are essentially flawless.
When I hear people talking about quality differences in guitars I sometimes find it hard to know what they're even referring to and I have wondered if it's only recently that the quality has been so perfect across the board; perhaps in previous decades you'd have to spend a grand to get that kind of quality and maybe that has moulded what people expect?
E.g. The other day someone said the Bernie looks like a 1600 quid guitar and I didn't understand the comment since I've seen that level of quality on guitars even cheaper. But maybe it's only recently that this has become the norm?
The Bernie does deserve its hype though. I think the binding helps make it look fancy. I've never played the core prs lp clones but the only thing I can even imagine that would be an improvement, other than aesthetically, would be if it was lighter. Not that the SE is heavy, I just can't think of any other way it would be improved in a practical way.
While I think the bling of high end PRS are massively overpriced you can at least see what you're being ripped off with. With a Telecaster you're not even getting some massively overpriced bling, you're just getting a plank. I'd go as far as to say Telecasters represent the biggest ripoff on the guitar market. They are loved, revered, lusted after and granted some indefinable mojo; yet they are cheap as chips to make and allow the silliest of markups that folks will pay. The materials cost v sale price of high end Fender Telecasters must represent the biggest margin in the guitar industry.
https://www.facebook.com/benswanwickguitar
I'm sure this is just electronics and pickups though which is great because it means for relatively cheap you can have quality in the areas you can't affect much and for just a little extra £££ you can make these mid-rangers into really excellent instruments. As it happens I sold the PRS SEs. I did buy an Arcane Mr Scary pickup for my LTD GL-256 though so hopefully that will confirm my theory that a pickup swap will breathe life into a cheaper instrument.
On a side note I recently played a mid-range Yamaha Revstar and was blown away by the quality and tone. I think Yamaha have really nailed it in the mid-range market and I wouldn't hesitate to get one if I was in the market for a high quality/low price guitar.
I was reluctant to give it back and have been gassing to get one as a modding platform.
Happy new guitar day enjoy
A Strat has some body contours and a trem and a LP does have the multi wood body, glued neck and binding which would make it cost more than a Tele.
That would explain why, say, an Epiphone LP cost a bit more than a Squier Strat which cost slightly more than a Squier Tele. But does it really mean that a high end multi thousand pound LP or Strat should really be any more significantly better than the basic model than for Teles?